deep_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool uses 'real-time data from multiple search providers' and is for 'current information', which clarifies its dynamic, non-idempotent nature hinted by annotations (idempotentHint: false). Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false) and scope (openWorldHint: true), so the description appropriately supplements with operational details without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and usage guidelines in the second. Every sentence earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does and when to use it, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with four parameters and good annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (search with multiple providers and parameters), annotations cover safety and scope well, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds necessary context about real-time data and usage scenarios. However, without an output schema, the description could briefly mention return types (e.g., search results or answers) to be more complete, though it's not required.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (query, provider, maxResults, includeAnswer). The description does not add specific meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'deep web' relates to parameters or provider capabilities. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden, but no extra value is provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('perform deep web searches', 'find current information', 'research topics', 'answer questions') and resources ('real-time data from multiple search providers'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'comprehensive_research' by emphasizing 'deep web searches' for 'up-to-date information beyond your knowledge cutoff', suggesting a different scope or methodology.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when you need up-to-date information beyond your knowledge cutoff.' This provides clear context for usage and implies an alternative (relying on internal knowledge) without naming specific sibling tools, but the mention of 'deep web searches' and 'real-time data' differentiates it from other potential tools like 'comprehensive_research'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.